0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Coal, Biomass, and Alternative Fuels

A Technoeconomic Analysis of Different Options for Cogenerating Power in Hydrogen Plants Based on Natural Gas Reforming

[+] Author and Article Information
Alessandro Corradetti

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università di Perugia, Via G. Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy

Umberto Desideri

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università di Perugia, Via G. Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italyumberto.desideri@unipg.it

Change in ST load can affect steam extraction to SMR, but off-design analysis is not an argument of the present paper.

In the REF plant and in all GT cycles, steam is exported at 27bar and 550°C; thus, its enthalpy content is 3.5GJt. In REF, HC and LC saturated steam at 27bar is produced, equivalent to 2.7GJt.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129(2), 338-351 (Aug 10, 2006) (14 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2434346 History: Received June 13, 2006; Revised August 10, 2006

Steam methane reforming is the most common process for producing hydrogen in the world. It currently represents the most efficient and mature technology for this purpose. However, because of the high investment costs, this technology is only convenient for large sizes. Furthermore, the cooling of syngas and flue gas produce a great amount of excess steam, which is usually transferred outside the process, for heating purposes or industrial applications. The opportunity of using this additional steam to generate electric power has been studied in this paper. In particular, different power plant schemes have been analyzed, including (i) a Rankine cycle, (ii) a gas turbine simple cycle, and (iii) a gas-steam combined cycle. These configurations have been investigated with the additional feature of CO2 capture and sequestration. The reference plant has been modeled according to state-of-the-art of commercial hydrogen plants: it includes a prereforming reactor, two shift reactors, and a pressure swing adsorption unit for hydrogen purification. The plant has a conversion efficiency of 75% and produces 145,000Sm3hr of hydrogen (equivalent to 435MW on the lower-heating-volume basis) and 63thr of superheated steam. The proposed power plants generate, respectively, 22MW (i), 36MW (ii), and 87MW (iii) without CO2 capture. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the optimum size for each configuration and to investigate the influence of some parameters, such as electricity, natural gas, and steam costs.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Scheme of the reference hydrogen plant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Scheme of SMR in SC plant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Scheme of SMR in GT plant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Scheme of SMR in CC plant

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Simplified scheme of the main streams and blocks and gas composition for plants with CO2 capture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

CoH in function of NG cost for a CoE of $0.05∕kWh (solid lines) and $0.06∕kWh (dotted lines)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

CoH in function of cost ratio between steam and NG. Solid lines: NG=$4.7∕GJ; CoE=$0.05∕kWh and dotted lines: NG=$5.64∕GJ; CoE=$0.06∕kWh. Gray lines: NG=$6.58∕GJ; CoE=$0.07∕kWh.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

PB period relative to the investment for power plant: CoE is fixed at $0.05∕kWh(a) and $0.06∕kWh(b). Steam-NG cost ratio is 1.1 (solid lines), 0.8 (dashed lines), and 0.5 (dotted lines).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

PB period relative to the investment for power plant in function of NG cost: CoE=0.05∕4.7×NGcost ($/kWh); Steam-NG cost ratio is 1.1 (solid lines), 0.8 (dashed lines), and 0.5 (dotted lines)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Influence of plant capacity on CoH for NG cost=$4.7∕GJ, CoE=$0.05∕kWh, steam/NG cost=1.1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Influence of plant capacity on CoH for NG cost=$4.7∕GJ, CoE=$0.05∕kWh, steam/NG cost=0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Influence of plant capacity on PB for NG cost=$4.7∕GJ. Steam/NG cost=1.1 (solid lines) and 0.5 (dotted lines). (a) CoE=$0.05∕kWh and (b) CoE=$0.06∕kWh.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Influence of NG cost on CoH in the REF plant, for a carbon tax of $20∕tCO2 (solid lines) and $40∕tCO2 (dotted lines)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Influence of Ctax on CoH (NG cost=$4.7∕GJ, CoE=$0.05∕kWh)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Influence of Ctax on PB in LC plants (NG cost=$4.7∕GJ, CoE=$0.05∕kWh)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Influence of Ctax on PB in HC and IC plants (NG cost=$4.7∕GJ, CoE=$0.05∕kWh)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In